If you are still or were into dark heresy do you prefer the first edition,  the second  edition or some hybrid?

I still love the setting premise, though I've been yearning for a rules light or medium version.

Most commentary I've read said 2nd edition was better for character creation and development, while short on the fluff compared to 1st edition.  I have a few of the 2nd edition books, but still missing 2.

Quote from: Schwartzwald;996714If you are still or were into dark heresy do you prefer the first edition,  the second  edition or some hybrid?

System's pretty much the same. It really is derth of content and setting lore -- the waxing philisophic fanboyism of the books in 1e series is missed compared to this. It's just... what was the point. There's isn't really much to say about it -- even 3rd WFRP brought more to the table and that's including the novelty card crap. I mean, they're even missing basic shit like adequate equipment, vehicles -- it just feels like a cash grab. And I'm not even a fan of WH40KRP like that.

There's a review on the Codex: http://www.rpgcodex.net/content.php?id=9678

Thanks for this reply.  I was kind. Of dazzled by the aptitude system which I like a lot as an alternative to classes but reading the above did ki d of help. Me see the flaws in dh2.  I already knew it had a cut and paste  feel to it but the above showed me the other flaws.

I just wish dark heresy's chargen wasn't so damned rigid....

I've had both and I think the second edition is generally tidier in it's rules, and has a more varied choice in character generation.

I think, truth be told, all of the W40KRP games were pretty conservative in their design. They attempted to lift the WFRP system for familiarity, but removed two important bits that added charm to the original. Firstly, the career system is replaced by a Class system, which automatically robs the sense of society building from the former game. Secondly, they also removed the 'single core rulebook' design, and attempted to create limited premises for each seperate line. This robbed the sense of independent adventurers from the game. People have argued about this for years, but for me it was clearly just aping a White Wolf marketing approach, and was basically just there to get fans to buy more books.

The system itself seemed underpowered in comparison to the characters presented in literature (which is largely what accounts for all the talk about 'whiff' factor these days), and while the game lines themselves were immensely popular for their lifespan (because of the IP), I'm not sure they were ever loved in the same manner as WFRP was. I do wonder what the new Wrath and Glory will be like, but to be honest, I've done my dash on the setting at this point.

Well the crafting rules on 2e we're a mess.  They we're very unclear and required a lot of fan patching to make sense.  The vehicle repair rules helped in a way if you ported them over to crafting.

PlAyers were nerfed a bit more in 2e in some ways. Also the enemies we're more powerful.

I like some things in 2e but it's cut and paste feel plus the poor crafting rules hurt it a lot.  I may combine the two  a little.

Quote from: TrippyHippy;997934The system itself seemed underpowered in comparison to the characters presented in literature (which is largely what accounts for all the talk about 'whiff' factor these days)

Most of the 40K literature I've read was focused on Space Marines and actual Inquisitors. High powered folks.
I was happy that DH was about much lower-powered characters... closer to the sorts of scenarios you could play out with the original wargame.

Now i'm. Not so. Sure.  I read a review of the review of dh2 and it really seemed to refute some of the points.

I'm leaning back to dh2 now...

The problem with the world is that fools and morons are filled with certainty while the wise and intelligent are plagued with doubt.